NFLPA files motion to vacate

[ANGR89]

Ok I still don't fully understand this....
I'm judging by responses this is good for Brady.....but how good?

 

[Hoodie]

would Berman rule on the NFLPA's motion to vacate at the meeting on Aug. 13 or possibly before?

 

[AllstonPatsFan]

It was my bad. I put the Rice case, but it is the Peterson case though.

But will the fact that the Peterson case is under appeal mean anything?

It shouldn't because the lower courts decision is still valid until it is overturned. In fact I read the NFL is currently not complying with that decision and court is considering a contempt of court proceeding.

 

[JDot]

Daniel Wallach ‏@WALLACHLEGAL 3m3 minutes ago
Brady special: NFL is "collaterally estopped" from contesting notice arguments raised by NFLPA by virtue of Adrian Peterson decision. Wow!

Can legal eagles explain why this is a "Wow"

 

[Rob0729]

It shouldn't because the lower courts decision is still valid until it is overturned. In fact I read the NFL is currently not complying with that decision and court is considering a contempt of court proceeding.

Forgot of the contempt of court thing.

 

[raduray]

Collateral estoppel basically means the NFL can't relitigate an issue that has already been decided. Bradys lawyers are saying the NFL litigated the notice issue and must abide by the decision. Collateral estoppel is usually very narrow. Not sure if this will be the argument that wins but very interesting.

This speaks to arbitrary and capricious punishment.

http://timinhonolulu.com/2015/08/07...ts-qb-brady-case-filed-friday-aug-7-in-ny-ap/

The NFL got it into the required 15 pages but the NFLPA needed 16 to get in all the signatures at the end.

 

[Gronkowski123]

following daniel wallach's twitter feed...
this seems like a no brainer for brady....

"Example cited by Brady: A. Hargrove was suspended 7 games for obstructing NFL’s Bounty investigation, but Tagliabue vacated due to no notice "

...perfect example...

 

[eom]

If Brady does win, they'll just say it was due to a technicality. You can't win these people. He has to win because it's right and it's fair, who cares what the haters say.

if brady wins wgaf

 

[AllstonPatsFan]

Can level eagles explain why this is a "Wow"

It's a interesting legal argument to make. I haven't heard anyone discuss it yet as the legal grounds to overturn.

Basically the wow means Bradys lawyers are smart and creative.

 

[upstater1]

Ok I still don't fully understand this....
I'm judging by responses this is good for Brady.....but how good?

The NFL has argued that it didn't need to give notice to Brady that his actions could result in punishment. I'm not sure why the NFL is arguing this, probably because they feel what they accuse him of falls under the Commish's almighty purview.

The NFLPA is arguing that because Judge Doty already ruled the NFL must gives players notice of penalties, that the ruling still applies for all NFL v. NFLPA actions, even though the Doty decision is being appealed.

 

[JMC00]

It shouldn't because the lower courts decision is still valid until it is overturned. In fact I read the NFL is currently not complying with that decision and court is considering a contempt of court proceeding.

In fact there is hearing on contempt of court against goodell August 13th with Doty presiding.

 

[raduray]

would Berman rule on the NFLPA's motion to vacate at the meeting on Aug. 13 or possibly before?

The way I understand it is that Berman will review and push settlement at the Aug 13 meeting. If no settlement, arguments will be made at the Aug 19 (?) meeting followed by decision by Sep 4.

 

[AllstonPatsFan]

Ok I still don't fully understand this....
I'm judging by responses this is good for Brady.....but how good?

It's only good if Berman agrees that's it's the same parties litigating the exact same issue. NFL will likely argue the issue is different somehow.

 

[raduray]

In fact there is hearing on contempt of court against goodell August 13th with Doty presiding.

Here's hoping Goodell has a bad week

 

[JDot]

It's a interesting legal argument to make. I haven't heard anyone discuss it yet as the legal grounds to overturn.

Basically the wow means Bradys lawyers are smart and creative.

Can you explain it to me?

 

[ctpatsfan77]

IANAL, but I have studied estoppel (since I once worked a field where the concept mattered).

Estoppel is a principle that limits the ability to file cases. Collateral estoppel is specifically the idea that you can't relitigate an issue that has already been decided. As others have noted, in this specific case, it means that because the NFL has already litigated the issue of notices with the NFLPA (and lost), it may not be possible for them to re-litigate it, although I believe that the NFL could overcome this by arguing that this is somehow fundamentally different.

It also applies here on the grounds that if someone in an official capacity makes a statement on which you rely, you can hold them responsible for it. For example, if an insurance agent claims that a policy covers X, when in fact it doesn't, the insurance company can be held responsible if X happens. Hmmm, I wonder where that happened here.

 

[raduray]

IANAL, but I have studied estoppel (since I once worked a field where the concept mattered).

Estoppel is a principle that limits the ability to file cases. Collateral estoppel is specifically the idea that you can't relitigate an issue that has already been decided. As others have noted, in this specific case, it means that because the NFL has already litigated the issue of notices with the NFLPA (and lost), it may not be possible for them to re-litigate it, although I believe that the NFL could overcome this by arguing that this is somehow fundamentally different.

It also applies here on the grounds that if someone in an official capacity makes a statement on which you rely, you can hold them responsible for it. For example, if an insurance agent claims that a policy covers X, when in fact it doesn't, the insurance company can be held responsible if X happens. Hmmm, I wonder where that happened here.

Oh, oh, oh, call me, call me! It's the phone!

 

[ChoWZa]

From the NFL point of view, it's in their best interest at this point that the Judge Berman vacates the suspension. I believe the NFL knows this. Brady not playing at this point would look terrible for them. They also have too much ego to vacate the suspension themselves. The NFL just needed (in their eyes) to make an aggressive attempt to destroy Brady's reputation which they've done and made everyone happy. They don't care if he actually serves the suspension just that everyone perceives them as trying everything they could to get it to stick. If they stayed inside the lines (not lying about Brady's testimony, leaking false information, etc) then the best outcome for them would be the suspension be upheld. I think it's a win/win for the NFL if it's vacated by the judge, everyone will still be happy about the draft picks.

It's all really disgusting.

 

[raduray]

Oh, oh, oh, call me, call me! It's the phone!

Daniel Wallach@WALLACHLEGAL
Wells testimony: “I want to be clear--I did not tell Brady at any time he would be subject to punishment for not turning over his cellphone"

 

[XLIX]

This has gone to the level that I now despise the league office. It just boils my blood to read their submission that Brady "provided inducements" for these activities to take place.

What would people say about an athlete who refused to sign stuff for the locker room assistants, other employees, and charities? We would call such an athlete kind of a jerk. But Brady's a nice guy so he signs stuff for people. Then he gets punished for it.